"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...

I've read the thread on how not to sound like an insensitive moron when debating about magazine capacity limits, but my brother and I got into a bit of a debate on this.

His claim was that people don't need them for self defense and they only cause more harm than good. I tried to point out that the 1994 AWB as well as a majority of shootings (including Columbine and Va Tech) were not committed with weapons with high capacity magazines.

He's not anti-gun per se, and doesn't believe in the confiscation of firearms. He does, however, believe that standard capacity magazines should be banned. There are probably threads on this and I apologize if I missed any, but any advice on what can be said here?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Why do you need 30 round magazines?"..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

76shuvlinoff

December 26, 2012, 11:34 PM

I don't even know why it's an issue. There are 60 rd mags out there and at the last gun show I went to I saw a double drum for an AR. There are also mechanisms to attach two mags side by side. You could always tape them together and just flip them end for end ...old school.

Paincakesx

December 26, 2012, 11:36 PM

I understand that his argument doesn't make much sense to those of us who are pro-gun. Given all the anti-gun hysteria going on, I'd like to earn my own kin as an ally to this movement :)

He got pretty heated, whereas I was calm as a cucumber. Could be a sign that he knows his argument doesn't ring true and is just too stubborn to accept it. Or maybe I'm over reading it...

HOOfan_1

December 26, 2012, 11:41 PM

He's not anti-gun per se, and doesn't believe in the confiscation of firearms. He does, however, believe that standard capacity magazines should be banned. There are probably threads on this and I apologize if I missed any, but any advice on what can be said here?

Why do we need sports cars?
they guzzle gas and some people want to race them which in turn kills innocent people

Why do we need golf courses?
They take up land which could be used by wildlife, or for better housing.

Why do we need alcohol?
Too many people die each year from alcohol related matters.

Why don't we have cell phones which shut off when people are in the car?
Too many texting related accidents.

Where do the assaults on our freedoms stop?

Redlg155

December 26, 2012, 11:43 PM

It's all about freedom from Government intervention. It means you can eat a double whopper with cheese instead of a tofu burger. A 4 wheel drive truck with a 6" lift instead of a Smart Car. Going to New York City and finding a bootleg Thirstbuster 64 ounce soda instead of a 12 oz drink.

We don't complain that a 1911 only has a 7 round magazine because it was meant to be that way. The same with a 30rd Magaine for an AR.

You "need "and it because your are a free man with all the glorious gluttony that comes with being free. Pass me another mag brother!

Paincakesx

December 26, 2012, 11:44 PM

I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

This actually surprised me given he's generally been more libertarian in the past.

Apparently the fact that the 1994 AWB did nothing to curb violent crime isn't relevant.

Perhaps he's a lost cause. :-/

Cesiumsponge

December 26, 2012, 11:48 PM

He touts himself as a libertarian, I'm starting to doubt that.
Just starting? Banning things because they're not practical or not needed is about as anti-Libertarian and statist as it gets. I don't need to, but if I wanted to, I could buy two sports cars and keep them idling on my grass until the cars run out of gas and it kills the grass.

Certaindeaf

December 26, 2012, 11:49 PM

I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

He touts himself as a libertarian, I'm starting to doubt that.

Politics aside,this may be an un-winnable case with him. To many this is an emotional issue rather than a factual one - this seems to be the problem.
You might be a failboy.. no slight intended. There is such a thing as an "inelastic" demand product/good.

HOOfan_1

December 26, 2012, 11:55 PM

Just starting? Banning things because they're not practical or not needed is about as anti-Libertarian and statist as it gets. I don't need to, but if I wanted to, I could buy two sports cars and keep them idling on my grass until the cars run out of gas and it kills the grass.

Indeed...Libertarians want LESS government interference.

Look at Demolition man...it is basically a Libertarian protest...

MistWolf

December 26, 2012, 11:56 PM

This is America. It's not about what we need.

You don't need freedom of speech.
You don't need freedom of religion.
You don't need protection from unreasonable search & seizure.
You don't need a trial by our peers.
You don't need any of the liberties & freedoms guaranteed to us by our creator.
All you need is a place to sleep and two meals a day. You don't need freedom to survive. There are plenty of prisoners in the world who get by every day without them

p2000sk

December 27, 2012, 12:12 AM

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
This is an article written by a well known THR member. It is a very informative read, however if you are looking for the spot about magazine capacity restriction, page down 9 times, near the bottom is a paragraph that starts like: We should ban magazines over X number of shots!
The entire article is worth reading, and gave me insightful ideas about discussion with fence sitters and antis.

Sniper66

December 27, 2012, 12:14 AM

It is always the intellectually lazy who opt for the easiest "solution", which is to simply "ban" something....guns, alcohol, sports cars, high capacity mags, the list could be endless. Fact is, human beings want all of these things. When my wife used to ask, "do you need another gun", I used to try to explain why I wanted it, but now I just say "Of course not, but I really want it." We want all these things and society has to figure out ways to live with and manage that reality.

Warp

December 27, 2012, 12:15 AM

The Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Sky

December 27, 2012, 12:16 AM

We hunt pigs or used to around here. A typical load-out was one or two 10 round mags and two 30 rounders. Easy to carry; does not need a bunch of special clothing to carry and is much quieter than a box of rocks or bullets. Convenience and ease of use..

Many people who lack an understanding of something simply because they have never walked in the end user's shoes.

nazshooter

December 27, 2012, 12:19 AM

"Why do you need it" is the wrong question. When you are talking about a constitutional right the burden is on those who wish to infringe to prove that the infringement they are seeking is necessary and also the least invasive way of achieving their goal.

The gun grabbers may be able to show that gun control reduces gun crimes but they cannot show that it has ever reduced overall violent crime, murder rates or overall mortality rates.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Warp

December 27, 2012, 12:22 AM

"Why do you need it" is the wrong question. When you are talking about a constitutional right the burden is on those who wish to infringe to prove that the infringement they are seeking is necessary and also the least invasive way of achieving their goal.

The gun grabbers may be able to show that gun control reduces gun crimes but they cannot show that it has ever reduced overall violent crime, murder rates or overall mortality rates.

Absolutely.

And it isn't just for Constitutionally protected rights, it is for criminalizing anything. THe burdon of proof is always on those who want to illegalize/criminalize/ban/restrict something.

Certaindeaf

December 27, 2012, 12:26 AM

It is always the intellectually lazy who opt for the easiest "solution", which is to simply "ban" something....guns, alcohol, sports cars, high capacity mags, the list could be endless. Fact is, human beings want all of these things. When my wife used to ask, "do you need another gun", I used to try to explain why I wanted it, but now I just say "Of course not, but I really want it." We want all these things and society has to figure out ways to live with and manage that reality.
I think a certain given/saying is "there's unlimited desires and limited...".. something like that.
it's same ol' times

armoredman

December 27, 2012, 12:31 AM

David Gregory wants to ban all magazines like the 30 round AR-15 magazine he waved during his interview with Wayne LaPeirre, as that banning will stop bad people from getting them. The magazine he was waving around the studio is currently banned in the city in which this interview was conducted. Obviously a ban did nothing to stop a mere reporter from getting one - how will it stop a real bad person?:neener:

Highcaliber

December 27, 2012, 12:36 AM

Last time I checked it was called the "Bill of Rights" not the Bill of Needs.

I suppose your brother doesn't realize just how many 30 round magazines stood idle, doing no harm to anyone, on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting. :banghead:

tomrkba

December 27, 2012, 12:39 AM

The answer to this question is in The Federalist Papers.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is war against governments. Self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting are nice, but we're supposed to be organized into militias and training.

We're supposed to have more than semi-automatic rifles too. Cannon were held privately during and after the Revolutionary War. A pair of idiots were standing in for Sean Hannity today and they continually argued that citizens cannot have RPG's. Well, they're wrong. If the Constitution authorizes cannon, which makes sense in modern warfare, then we can have bazookas.

But, people refuse to form militias as is proper:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=870091&postcount=8

Paincakesx

December 27, 2012, 12:41 AM

Are you aware of any instances where a high capacity magazine was used, and needed to repel attackers?

Perhaps such examples would work to show that it's not an impossible scenario.

I tried to explain him the real purpose of the 2nd amendment. He, as many do, tried to brush that off as a "that would never happen here" scenario.

By the way, I definitely appreciate the responses. He may be a lost cause, but I will continue to do what I can to educate those around me :)

Justin

December 27, 2012, 12:47 AM

I actually used the sports car analogy and the alcohol analogy. Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

So, he thinks that Prohibition was a raging success, then, does he?

After all, once they banned booze, no one broke the law in order to have a drink, right?

HDCamel

December 27, 2012, 12:54 AM

I don't, but they're convenient and not needing something has never been a good reason for banning it.

VTmtn.man

December 27, 2012, 01:00 AM

The 2nd Amend. is all about citizens having a viable way of determining thier own circumstances against any and all arenas of influince. Part of 'viable' is having arms commensurate with the times. If the average soldier, gang member were carying sticks and stones citizens should be able to cary likewise... I'm sure the introduction of the Colt Peacemaker caused a bigger splash than what a 30 round mag causes today. I think the argument for an AR mag should not stem from want or need but should start and end with the tenets of our constitution as set forth by our founding fathers.

MachIVshooter

December 27, 2012, 01:02 AM

Considering he loves cars and enjoys alcohol socially, I was shocked when he said he was fine with banning those (after trying to claim it was irrelevant).

Only for the purposes of the conversation you were having. Believe me, if his right to own whatever car he wanted and drink his favorite spirit was ever actually threatened, he would sing a very different tune. It's easy to play the martyr role when you're not in any danger.

gtd

December 27, 2012, 01:15 AM

The Second Amendment isn't about self defense.
^this

asia331

December 27, 2012, 01:27 AM

Why do you need an 20 gallon gas tank? Wouldn't 12 be enough? The magazine capacity issue is a ruse; just another way for the anti's to "eat the elephant" one bite at a time. The original Clinton AWB was just a way to get the American public to accept that a certain "type" of firearm, could be legitimately banned. It had nothing to do with reducing crime and everything to do with changing the way that citizens think about their rights. They want the American public to accept the notion that rights can be negotiated away. The citizenry needs to stand firm that civil rights are never negotiable.

I hope I never "need" thirty round mags. Having them "in case" is my constitutional right.

Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Bubba613

December 27, 2012, 05:08 AM

WHy do we need 30 rd magazines? We don't. So what? That isn't a reason to ban them. The crime rate will not be affected one iota by an arbitrary mag limit.

JohnBiltz

December 27, 2012, 05:25 AM

We probably don't need 30 round magazines. We do need more capacity than 10 though.

gunNoob

December 27, 2012, 05:30 AM

Because I'm free

Ms_Dragon

December 27, 2012, 05:46 AM

Seriously, if you are a owner of a gun or guns that are capable of of holding mags of 10, 20, or 30 rounds then proficiency in swapping out expended mags should be part of your training regime.

Does your gun club have a shoot house?
Somewhere where you can practice these techniques?

Sonny, regardless of what you think of him, shows how quickly you can change magazines using his techniques of magazine non-retention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3XCMNYMHFM&list=UUjDIujJ9JPZTtWuPv6LKuXQ

I'm also a huge fan of his cradle carry. In case you are interested.

Cheers,
~Ms Dragon.

MudPuppy

December 27, 2012, 06:52 AM

How about this--walk through a fictional scenario with whatever limits or compromised offered. During the simulation of kindergarten shooting, does the kill count drop with 10 round magazines? 7 rounds? Revolvers?

It's morbid to consider, but the truth is, an adult or two taken down allows the babies to be massacred. Imagine an adult in front of the door, what can a tiny child do?

To even come close to what is being desired by the antis requires all, ALL guns to be eliminated (not banned).

And at this point, the mentally deranged start looking at other, easily available options to murder.

The simple truth is, a magazine and assault weapons ban won't achieve the goal. Another simple truth is, that's not even what they're after. It's a step. Read history, this story has been played out before and that's what would unfold here if we allow it.

xsquidgator

December 27, 2012, 07:37 AM

When liberals talk about how evil 30 round "assault clips" are, I like to say "sounds like you've made a good argument for taking them away from the police and the .gov"!

BigBoreFan

December 27, 2012, 07:41 AM

Why do I need 30 round magazines? Because I can't afford a belt fed. Leading to the conversation about "reasonable restrictions" of class III. I say let the urban folks, and east coast folks have all the restrictions they want. Move out to the rural areas and then we'll be reasonable. We'll also think hard before we feed you.

Zeke/PA

December 27, 2012, 07:59 AM

As in a previous post: Banning Hi Cap Mags is a mere window dressing as we all know as a Mag change can be made in 3 or 4 seconds by someone bent on causing hurt.
To prove this point to some non-believers a few years back, I put 20 shots into the head/chest area of a silohette target at 100 yards,using an issue
'03-A3 Springfield, in 1 minute and 20 seconds.
I started with a loaded rifle and had to reload 3 times using 5 round stripper clips.
MOST politicians don't have a clue!

bikerdoc

December 27, 2012, 08:12 AM

No ban, or confiscation will solve the root cause.

Mental illness.

Rex Kramer

December 27, 2012, 11:23 AM

"Why do you need 30 round magazines?"...

Because 50, 75 & 100 round drums are expensive and heavy

Throwingdown

December 27, 2012, 11:27 AM

The same argument that you don't need that many rounds for hunting..I don't recall seeing anything about hunting in the second.

JustinJ

December 27, 2012, 11:38 AM

Does your gun club have a shoot house?
Somewhere where you can practice these techniques?

Not to get off topic but does yours? As much fun as a shoot house would be i'd personally be terrified going to a range where they let any average joe shoot in one.

On a side note what makes you believe the average gun owner needs to practice quick mag changes. The vast majority of home and self defense shootings require a couple of shots at most, much less 11 or more. I suppose its good to practice in case of malfunctions but based on the accounts i've read these things happen so fast that if you're delayed a couple of seconds you better have a plan B.

gossamer

December 27, 2012, 01:12 PM

I had a similar conversation with my very pro-gun, retired military, semi-retired LE, uncle. He owns all kinds of firearms including those which would be banned (AR15, blah blah blah) and my very VERY pro-gun brother-in-law who's collection of guns dwarfs most I've seen. He too has guns that would be banned.

My uncle, who's been involved in multiple personal defense situations with his gun and had to shoot someone said very clearly: in a personal defense situation you are most likely to fire fewer than 10 shots, and if they are well-placed you need only fire one. His premise is that it's not good to have people rely on capacity at the expense of accuracy in a personal defense situation.

He argued that a capacity limitation wouldn't bother him. I can't say it would bother me because I do not own the guns it would apply to (except maybe my FNP40). And while guns are generally just about utility for me - and their utility FOR ME isn't diminished by a smaller capacity magazine - the argument isn't just about utility for everyone else who owns guns.

And that's where the question gets interesting. Because when we take "utility" out of the equation, the question of "who NEEDS a high-cap magazine?" becomes irrelevant.

It turns into a question of rights. And rights are about law. And the law leads us to this question:

Here is rhe rejoinder:

"what business is it of yours to tell me what I need?"

Here is the response: "It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."

Emotional response? Yes. Completely true? No. Partially true? Yes.

Our rights to something are "rights" only insofar as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. Our right to a sports car is fine until it speeds down our highways or is driven recklessly.

Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.

The argument that an acceptable restriction to a right can be employed when the greater good is in jeopardy has been accepted by the SCOTUS, legislatures and society at large. We bar the *******s from nearby Topeka from protesting too close to funerals at the cemetery next to my house, thereby limiting their first-amendment rights on the grounds that those rights cannot trump the families's right to grieve.

There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.

We agree that WBC doesn't have a "need" to protest that funeral which is of greater social good than the right of the family to grieve.

We agree that the shouter doesn't have a need to yell "fire" greater than the right of safety of theater goers.

So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?

The SCOTUS has interpreted the law such that the right to use speech can be limited on the grounds it may infringe on privacy and grief, how can they argue that the right to utilize a gun in a certain high-capacity way cannot be limited just because it may infringe on the right of life and safety?

I read commentary about "a killer can swap out 10-round mags in just 3 seconds." My answer, "great, if they're that easy to swap out then you won't miss the larger ones."

I read the "slippery slope" arguments: "this is a step towards confiscation of all guns. Read history." My answer: "I read history. I need look no further than 8 years ago when the AWB was lifted and since that time gun rights have expanded."

I read about a "right" to own a certain magazine size: My answer, "1) we have a legal history of limitations to the Amendments to the Constitution where the greater good is served. (2) show me where the 2A gives you the right to a magazine."

I read about how "the crime rate won't drop with a mag limitation." My answer: "great, we're not just talking about dropping the crime rate. We're also talking about reducing the effect of mass-shootings and this is one part of that."

I read that the "root cause is mental illness." My answer: "People without a trace of mental illness act out gun violence every single day in this country. They do it with hi-cap magazines and low-cap magazines."

I'm playing Devil's Advocate and finding very few good arguments from either side for their staked out positions.

I guess my point is, many of the arguments from both sides are moot because this is ultimately a question of law. We are a Republic. A nation of law. The question is, how do those laws permit us a right to a certain degree of utility while they curtail the utility of other, equally sacrosanct rights?

JustinJ

December 27, 2012, 01:22 PM

Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.

Except misuse of those items also directly impacts other citizens. I agree they aren't perfect comparisons but you can't exempt them on the claim that they too don't affect others.

There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.

That comparison irks me. The first amendment is about protecting the expression of ideas and the sharing of information. Yelling "fire" in a theater is no more a first amendment right than is pulling a fire alarm.

So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?

I agree with your argument against absolutes. You certainly make great points. However, the question is will banning 30 rounders actually save the lives of children?

r1derbike

December 27, 2012, 02:07 PM

Why does anyone need 30 rounders? To take care of the 4 armed intruders hiding just out of view, while their female accomplice rings the doorbell and tells your wife she is doing a marketing survey with her employer, may clean your carpets, and her crew may begin immediately, with nothing charged for the complimentary cleaning.

This happened several weeks ago, and the only part I added was the 4 armed robbers crouched out of view on either side of the doorway, instead of inside the beat up van parked in our driveway.

I had my carry weapon with me, while my wife told the degenerate we just had them cleaned last week.

It was then I realized just how vulnerable we could have been from multiple armed intruders. It happens, and home intrusions in daylight are at an all time high here, confirmed by a neighbor's call to the police about suspicious vehicles stopping in front of homes in our village.

Members of our degenerate subculture would love to have everything banned.

Oh, forgot, the left would like everything banned as well.

parsimonious_instead

December 27, 2012, 02:19 PM

I'm against a legal limit on magazine capacity not because I particularly want a 20-30+ round magazine, but because I don't want to become a criminal for having one.
NYS law states that it's a felony to possess or dispose of a "high capacity" magazine. Great... so let's say my local FFL receives an out of state firearm with a detachable mag. He doesn't check it for a "hi-cap" mag, and sends me on my way.
I get it home and look inside... oops! There's a 15-round and a ten-round mag - I'm now a felon! Horray! Now I'm stuck with it - as the law is written, there doesn't seem to be a way to legally get rid of it without breaking the law, too.
Gov Cuomo wants to limit mags to SEVEN rounds now - ridiculous!

Warp

December 27, 2012, 02:31 PM

Why does anyone need 30 rounders? To take care of the 4 armed intruders hiding just out of view, while their female accomplice rings the doorbell and tells your wife she is doing a marketing survey with her employer, may clean your carpets, and her crew may begin immediately, with nothing charged for the complimentary cleaning.

This happened several weeks ago, and the only part I added was the 4 armed robbers crouched out of view on either side of the doorway, instead of inside the beat up van parked in our driveway.

I had my carry weapon with me, while my wife told the degenerate we just had them cleaned last week.

It was then I realized just how vulnerable we could have been from multiple armed intruders. It happens, and home intrusions in daylight are at an all time high here, confirmed by a neighbor's call to the police about suspicious vehicles stopping in front of homes in our village.

Members of our degenerate subculture would love to have everything banned.

Oh, forgot, the left would like everything banned as well.

I don't think making up scenarios without a real world basis does anything but make you look paranoid (yes, I used that word...paranoid)

Trent

December 27, 2012, 02:53 PM

Gossamer;

The impact of these types of laws are profound on law abiding citizens.

To give you an example, Illinois recently tried to pass an assault weapons ban that would have made possession of certain ammunition, firearms, and "high capacity ammunition feeding devices" felony charges. (Keep in mind, Feinstein's upcoming proposed plan is even harsher than the worst thing Governor Quinn and the Chicago anti-gunners have ever dreamed up.)

Put this in context to explain to you exactly HOW many felonies I could be charged with, if the Governor's proposed assault weapon ban passes in Illinois:

[snip]
So.. final tally:

At *LEAST* 343 felonies and over 12,000 misdemeanor charges.

Now, think about this for a minute.

You argue there is no compelling NEED for these devices; a point which could be refuted if you're willing to debate at length and discuss topics which are frowned upon at THR (such as the need to defend one's homeland from governments which turn on their citizens).

But the main point we need to reach here, is enacting a law such as this will turn everyday, honest, hard working Americans in to criminals. Counting recent acquisitions, it's possible that in the very near future, depending on the language in the federal bills that are submitted and whether they pass, I could be guilty of upwards of 400 felony charges for what I own. Or upwards of 12,000 felonies, depending on what ammunition is classified as.

Henry David Thoreau puts it more eloquently in his essay On Civil Disobedience, than I can:

"In a country with unjust laws, the only place for an honest man is in prison."

Now, in the United States of America, I was born a free man.

I obey all laws, I pay my taxes (and penalties and fines, when I screw up), I raise my children with a set of moral and ethical codes, I contribute to society through generous donations to our educational system, women's rights organizations, and other organizations that I feel deserving. I pay my debts, I honor my deals, and I treat others with fairness, kindness, and respect; even if I do not agree with their politics or opinions.

I'm a good man, a fair man, and a peaceful man.

HOWEVER.

If my government makes me a felon through NO cause or action of mine, I will fight.

If my government threatens my children and subsequent generations their heritage, and right to be raised in a free society, I will fight.

If my government removes the sole fail-safe protection we as a free people have to remain a free people, I will fight.

I may fight only with words. Or not.

Either way, it's a road we, as a nation, do NOT need to travel down.

You may cry "for the children" until you are blue in the face. But the harsh reality is the targets were kinder-gardeners, frail little things, and that tragically unstable young man could have just as easily done what he did with a knife, hammer, chainsaw, or other instrument.

You can only stop force with force. Period. Until society solves the underlying problems that make things like this happen in the first place, evolves in to a more enlightened civilization, solves murder, hunger, rape, armed robbery, genocide, wars of religion, resource, and revenge, eliminates theft of innocence once and for all....

I'm keeping my damn guns.

MistWolf

December 27, 2012, 02:55 PM

I had a similar conversation with my very pro-gun, retired military, semi-retired LE, uncle. He owns all kinds of firearms including those which would be banned (AR15, blah blah blah) and my very VERY pro-gun brother-in-law who's collection of guns dwarfs most I've seen. He too has guns that would be banned.

My uncle, who's been involved in multiple personal defense situations with his gun and had to shoot someone said very clearly: in a personal defense situation you are most likely to fire fewer than 10 shots, and if they are well-placed you need only fire one. His premise is that it's not good to have people rely on capacity at the expense of accuracy in a personal defense situation.

He argued that a capacity limitation wouldn't bother him. I can't say it would bother me because I do not own the guns it would apply to (except maybe my FNP40). And while guns are generally just about utility for me - and their utility FOR ME isn't diminished by a smaller capacity magazine - the argument isn't just about utility for everyone else who owns guns.

And that's where the question gets interesting. Because when we take "utility" out of the equation, the question of "who NEEDS a high-cap magazine?" becomes irrelevant.

It turns into a question of rights. And rights are about law. And the law leads us to this question:

Here is the response: "It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."

Emotional response? Yes. Completely true? No. Partially true? Yes.

Our rights to something are "rights" only insofar as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. Our right to a sports car is fine until it speeds down our highways or is driven recklessly.

Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.

The argument that an acceptable restriction to a right can be employed when the greater good is in jeopardy has been accepted by the SCOTUS, legislatures and society at large. We bar the *******s from nearby Topeka from protesting too close to funerals at the cemetery next to my house, thereby limiting their first-amendment rights on the grounds that those rights cannot trump the families's right to grieve.

There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.

We agree that WBC doesn't have a "need" to protest that funeral which is of greater social good than the right of the family to grieve.

We agree that the shouter doesn't have a need to yell "fire" greater than the right of safety of theater goers.

So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?

The SCOTUS has interpreted the law such that the right to use speech can be limited on the grounds it may infringe on privacy and grief, how can they argue that the right to utilize a gun in a certain high-capacity way cannot be limited just because it may infringe on the right of life and safety?

I read commentary about "a killer can swap out 10-round mags in just 3 seconds." My answer, "great, if they're that easy to swap out then you won't miss the larger ones."

I read the "slippery slope" arguments: "this is a step towards confiscation of all guns. Read history." My answer: "I read history. I need look no further than 8 years ago when the AWB was lifted and since that time gun rights have expanded."

I read about a "right" to own a certain magazine size: My answer, "1) we have a legal history of limitations to the Amendments to the Constitution where the greater good is served. (2) show me where the 2A gives you the right to a magazine."

I read about how "the crime rate won't drop with a mag limitation." My answer: "great, we're not just talking about dropping the crime rate. We're also talking about reducing the effect of mass-shootings and this is one part of that."

I read that the "root cause is mental illness." My answer: "People without a trace of mental illness act out gun violence every single day in this country. They do it with hi-cap magazines and low-cap magazines."

I'm playing Devil's Advocate and finding very few good arguments from either side for their staked out positions.

I guess my point is, many of the arguments from both sides are moot because this is ultimately a question of law. We are a Republic. A nation of law. The question is, how do those laws permit us a right to a certain degree of utility while they curtail the utility of other, equally sacrosanct rights?

The Bill of Rights was also written with the understanding that it does not grant us rights, that we have these rights because we exist as sentient beings and with the understanding that the Bill of Rights does not define all of our inalienable rights.

Many of our rights are liberties. That is, we are at liberty to exercise our rights and are held responsible for consequences of our choices.

What that means, if we yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or start shooting in a crowded theater, we must be held responsible. It does not mean a rash of people yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater justifies banning the word "fire" any more than a murder justifies banning a type of firearm or accessory

Ole Coot

December 27, 2012, 03:04 PM

Forget the 2nd Amendment! I will use whatever I chose to exercise my God given right to defend myself and family.

1stmarine

December 27, 2012, 03:25 PM

If everything is nice and calm I don't need a 30 round magazine. Might not even need a firearm. But then when things go south then we need all help we can get to defend our families and ourselves.
So, limiting by men's made laws the capability for the humans to be able to defend themselves by any means they consider necessary is not just irrational but against natural law.
We all know that a mother bear will use anything in her arsenal to defend her cubs and we accept that because it is natural law. We do not hold her guilty of praying w/o reason. So what kind of entitlement can anyone have to deny such a fundamental right given by the laws of God and nature to any sentient being ?

What I have been doing the last few days is to write all senators, post online with my limited knowledge of the media circus, and donate all my Christmas money to the NRA, Scope and other organizations fighting for liberty.

You argue there is no compelling NEED for these devices; a point which could be refuted if you're willing to debate at length and discuss topics which are frowned upon at THR (such as the need to defend one's homeland from governments which turn on their citizens).

That is NOT what I argued. I argued that various needs (and rights) have been found to be curtail-able by the SCOTUS and our society on the grounds that those needs are trumped by other, "greater" societal goods. So I do not advocate using the "need" argument on those grounds.

The argument that the magazine limitation would criminalize otherwise law abiding people is a strong one. But our country has dealt with this before.

I'm still not sure we've formulated a sufficiently strong argument in favor of hi-cap magazines. I think for it to work these arguments have to be rooted in law because that is where they will ultimately be challenged. That's why the strongest one may be "I'm a peaceful law abiding citizen with no kind of gun fetish, and you propose criminalizing me."

Trent

December 27, 2012, 04:02 PM

The argument that the magazine limitation would criminalize otherwise law abiding people is a strong one. But our country has dealt with this before.

Our country has never dealt with a firearms ban of this particular magnitude, or with these particular repercussions. The original AWB was grandfathered without registration, did not prohibit the transfer or sale of weapons or magazines in existence prior to the enactment. You, as well as anyone else, knows that a ban lacking these provisions is ineffective; I was able to buy high-capacity magazines at whim, a full 10 years in to the 10 year ban.

As magazines do NOT have serial numbers or other uniquely identifiable characteristics, it is impossible to tell WHEN they were manufactured, or to register or track WHO owns them. The ONLY way the magazine ban will work, in the end, is to make possession of them outright illegal. Which, constitutionally, should not be possible.

Illinois attempted to side step this by requiring photographs of every high capacity feeding device and/or original sales receipts. (The latter being impossible to provide, since I've paid cash for most everything over the years). Their logic is "at the onset of the ban, you had "X" magazines, if we catch you with "X+1" you're a felon.

I will not now, or ever, catalog my personal possessions for the benefit of the Government. We've recently seen an example of exactly what everyone fears in the release of all those concealed carry permit holders in New York. Literally - a roadmap right to gun owner's homes.

The risk that I *forgot* to include a magazine that has been sitting in a box somewhere is very, very real. I was recently cleaning the garage and found a box containing 4 fully loaded AK-47 30-round magazines and two 100 round German 30 cal belts, which I had MISSED when calculating the total numbers I quoted earlier this year. They'd been sitting in that box for at least 5 years, the box hadn't been opened since we bought our new house and moved!

Boom. I just became a felon, if that law had passed in Illinois. A law enforcement search would no doubt be exhaustive. What if I double-count, miss-count, or forget to photograph a particular magazine to prove I owned it prior to the ban... I'm screwed.

Do I then become a felon due to bad math, or getting distracted by one of my five children's theatrics, or the phone ringing, or whatever?

This isn't theoretical, not at all. A law was presented THIS YEAR in my state to do this very thing. Feinstein just presented something far worse.

I will not now, not ever, either willingly or compelled by force, give up or catalog my personal belongings for the benefit of a government which is hell bent on denying me the right to those items.

I'm still not sure we've formulated a sufficiently strong argument in favor of hi-cap magazines. I think for it to work these arguments have to be rooted in law because that is where they will ultimately be challenged. That's why the strongest one may be "I'm a peaceful law abiding citizen with no kind of gun fetish, and you propose criminalizing me."

There's a stronger argument to be put forth, much stronger. But such topics are verboten on this forum. People's beliefs, when put to the test, can have undesirable outcomes.

tomrkba

December 27, 2012, 04:06 PM

This whole "sporting purposes" nonsense has to go away. The purpose of the Second Amendment, according to The Federalist Papers, is war. Sport shooting, hunting and personal defense are nice side effects. Thirty round and larger capacity magazines serve a military and militia purpose and therefore are protected under the Second Amendment.

1stmarine

December 27, 2012, 04:28 PM

The sporting purposes refers to hunting and sports that is a privilege.
The 2nd amendment that is the actual right doesn't imply any limitations for people to be able to defend themselves effectively and efficiently in any form of shape they might consider necessary.
They can put anything they want in the law, that proposal is against the 2nd amendment so it should be put in the trash can.
All we have to say all firearms owners with one single voice is we will not obey that law because of the result of that law being passed and implemented only means that the check and balances have failed to protect the supreme law of the land.
We know the politicians taking the votes are the puppets of the sensationalist media and hidden agendas.
The emphasis should be only in laws that help keep any guns away from criminals and assist with the keeping of legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.

gossamer

December 27, 2012, 04:40 PM

Our country has never dealt with a firearms ban of this particular magnitude, or with these particular repercussions.

I'm talking about the fact that this country has dealt with the legal concept that otherwise law-abiding people would be criminals if a new law passed. There have been exceptions, exclusions, "grandfatherings," time limitations, etc. etc. in all kinds of areas concerning restrictions on liberties and rights that have been found satisfactory and reasonable by the SCOTUS to sufficiently avoid the criminalization of non-criminals.

nazshooter

December 27, 2012, 04:43 PM

He argued that a capacity limitation wouldn't bother him. I can't say it would bother me because I do not own the guns it would apply to (except maybe my FNP40).

That's incredibly short sighted. I don't plan to publish anything very controversial, I've never had my property searched without a warrant, I'm not black etc. Does this mean I shouldn't care if we ditch the 1st, 4th, 14&15th amendments? You cannot infringe on one of our rights without weakening the protections on the others. You yourself have proven the point by using various historical infringements on the 1A in order to justify infringements on the 2A. We either hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Our rights to something are "rights" only insofar as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. Our right to a sports car is fine until it speeds down our highways or is driven recklessly.

Which is exactly equivalent to my right to own a 10+ round magazine so long as I don't use it to commit a crime. What someone else does with theirs is irrelevant in both cases. The right to own a sports car (or even a horse) isn't anywhere in the Constitution but firearms are which means they get MORE protection.

Comparisons to foods and alcohol are inappropriate to me because those are personal consumables.

Alcohol is very much appropriate in that people who abuse it often cause harm to others. There is a town not far from me that has a problem with street alcoholics. It's so bad that some of these guys have more than 400 police contacts per year!

We bar the *******s from nearby Topeka from protesting too close to funerals....

Yes, but they are still allowed to protest and there has been no limit imposed on the content of their protest. This is equivalent to gun free zones. Many of us think they are counterproductive but few believe they are actually unconstitutional in most cases.

There is the classic line about how we curtail the rights of someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. All of these are greater good arguments.

Interestingly enough that line comes from the case of Schenck v. United States where the court said that the government could ban distribution of fliers opposing the draft because it threatened the governments recruitment efforts. Do you really want to tie your argument to THAT sort of thinking?

So the question for us is, how do we demonstrate a "need" to own a 30-round magazine greater than the right of someone else to be free of fear that their child might die through the use of one?

There is NO right to be "free of fear". At a bare minimum it is up to those fearful people to show that MY 30+ round magazine is ACTUALLY putting their child in danger. Their fear is not an argument against my Constitutional right any more than my unfounded fear of women voting is an argument against allowing them to do so.

I read the "slippery slope" arguments: "this is a step towards confiscation of all guns. Read history." My answer: "I read history. I need look no further than 8 years ago when the AWB was lifted and since that time gun rights have expanded."

All that shows is that "slippery slopes" tend to work both ways. You've just added evidence that we really shouldn't give in just a little because it's likely to be the start of a trend.

I read about a "right" to own a certain magazine size: My answer, "1) we have a legal history of limitations to the Amendments to the Constitution where the greater good is served.

More specifically, when you are talking about an individual right, such limitations need to be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. Once again, it is up to the government to prove that any particular infringement meets these requirements, not up to the people to prove that it does not.

(2) show me where the 2A gives you the right to a magazine."

A magazine is clearly a part of a firearm. To argue that the government cannot infringe on our ability to own or carry a firearm but can infringe on our ability to own or carry each individual sub-component would make the entire 2nd null and void.

I read about how "the crime rate won't drop with a mag limitation." My answer: "great, we're not just talking about dropping the crime rate. We're also talking about reducing the effect of mass-shootings and this is one part of that."

Unless you think being shot to death is worse than being murdered in any other way we should be talking about mass KILLINGS, not mass SHOOTINGS. Do you have ANY evidence that past magazine limits have significantly reduced the number or severity of mass killings?

nazshooter

December 27, 2012, 04:45 PM

How about this? Millions of Americans think 10+ round magazines are so necessary that they have given up their hard earned money in order to buy them as well as to buy guns designed to utilize them.

Collector0311

December 27, 2012, 04:58 PM

We hunt hogs here in Texas, they cause tens of millions of dollars in property damage annually. Not to mention maiming and killing people.

I once watched my uncle be charged by a hog while we were hunting, and he was reloading his revolver. My dad shot the hog 8 times before it dropped and had only 3 rounds left in a 30rd mag when it was over. He needed it. And I still have an uncle. Anyone care to counter? Didn't think so.

David E

December 27, 2012, 05:01 PM

How about this? Millions of Americans think 10+ round magazines are so necessary that they have given up their hard earned money in order to buy them as well as to buy guns designed to utilize them.

Why would the antis care?

In addition to personal defense, the 2A is about defending the country from threats foreign and domestic. The forefathers expected the militia (citizenry) to have a current arm suitable for the task.

Trent

December 27, 2012, 05:04 PM

Q: "Why do you need 30 round magazines?"

A: "In case a bunch of humorless folks in body armor and tactical gear show up trying to take them away under threat of deadly force."

But, you could still do that with a 10 round fixed magazine, you'd just have to be able to feed it quickly.

Then some genius will devise a speedloader system for rifles with fixed magazines... OH WAIT THEY HAVE (M1 Garand, SKS, etc.).

So fixed magazine capacity will be limited and speedloaders of all sorts will be made illegal.

Of course, I could do the same thing with 30x 10 round fixed capacity long guns that I can do with one assault rifle and 10x 30 round magazines.

So then they'll impose a limit on how many firearms you can possess.

But, a person with one firearms will still be able to kill 1000 people even if it's single shot... So you'll need to limit how much ammunition a person can possess. (Something else they've hinted at... "thousands of rounds of ammo" becomes a "stockpile" in every news report... disregard in an average month many of us shoot a thousand or more rounds of ammo...)

Of course, then those evil hunting rifles like the 300 Win Mag and 7mm Remington Magnum and anything else capable of emptying a skull at 1/2 mile or more will be deemed dangerous.. so those will go too...

Down to 22 rimfires, but you can stuff that against someone's temple and even a 22 short will end them (very quietly, at that).

So those go too.

The end result is "all guns must go."

Get it through your heads! This is the thought process and the conclusion that has been reached on the other side. ALL weapons must go.

Period.

Every minor victory we hand them advances them towards that goal.

So quit giving ground.

FiremanJim

December 27, 2012, 05:08 PM

I'm a firefighter/paramedic.
Not saying that to be stuck up or anything. Just saying that so you know, I'm not some guy blowing wind out of his butt.
A friend of mine who is a policeman for the city we work for was on a routine stop, and was suddenly fired upon by a man with a AK 47 intending to kill his psychiatrist and everyone in the Dr's office until my buddy pulled him over. He had 30 round mags. He swiss cheesed the patrol car and was shot with a police issue Glock that held 15 rounds. My buddy wasnt hit, and the guy survived his wounds and he's currently incarcerated.

I've got eight 9mm holes in my house and one in my jeep wrangler when some kids had a party across the street and started shooting.
Two kids dead and seven wounded. So I'm no starnger to gun violence at work or at home.
I've seen many people run over, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned and yes shot.
So far, nobody has banned cars, knives, sticks or matches however.
Guns seem to scare everybody, as well they should. They shouldnt be taken lightly, but given the utmost respect for what it is they do.

Do we need AR's or semi-auto weapons? Probably not. I have an AR, and I love it, but I havent used it for much else than target shooting.
For serious hunting, I have a uberti 1873 rifle and a remington 700 M24 replica in .308
For self defence I have a Sig P226.
Havent had to shoot anybody, and hope I never do.

To be honest, 30 round mags are cool, and I like my windowed PMAG's.
Do I need them, naw. Not unless the zombie apocalypse really happens, and I aint holding my breath.

If I cant have my AR anymore, I will HAPPILY donate it it to the guys in the SWAT team who I KNOW will put it to good use.

Because those who want them, have ALREADY got them.
If they are banned, only those who HAVENT bought them already, are SOL.
And if 30 round magazines are banned from the streets, period?

Guess what, those who respect the law WILL leave them at home.

But a psycho whose determined to kill innocent lives, doesnt care if he uses 20,30,60, 100 round mags or not.
A guy in China and a fella in Japan used kitchen knives to kill schoolchildren.

And kitchen knives still arent banned in those countries.

I hear your brothers view, and I respect it. But in truth, most of us in Fire, Police, and EMS know that even if there was a COMPLETE ban of ALL weapons, and NOBODY could even buy a slingshot, it wouldnt matter.

And chances are, he's got more of them than most of us do.
And he doesnt care if it's banned or not.

Tell your brother not to get too heated about all this. Thats what the media wants.
Good for ratings. And does nothing but stir up anger.....................................................And better ratings.

The good people who own guns and 30 round mags and dont bother anyone arent our enemies, and dont deserve to be demonized.
The psycho who wants to kill for no reason already has his weapons, or can get the without saying "purty please?"
It's just a matter of time before he snaps and uses them.

Banning guns and mags may help, but I doubt it.
You can buy stuff ILLEGALLY, without anyone knowing.
And even if a psycho LEGALLY buys 20 round or 10 round mags because he wants to play nice.

A nickels worth of duct tape easily makes a 10 rounder into a twenty,or a twenty into a forty.

Tell your brother to do what he thinks is right, but it aint worth getting pissed of at his brother for.

The damage is done. Whats going on now is just political public relations damage control,and media ratings boosting, which seems to be slacking off now that everyones attention is on this fiscal cliff stuff.

And of course, boosting gun and gun magazine sales, which if I'm not mistaken, was the exact opposite of what everyone wanted.
All this fear and anger did, was help boost the economy, and gun gougers, who are laughing their butts off as they stuff their wallets.

Want to really make a difference, join us in public safety and help take care of our neighbors.

Or ask the government for people to get a mental health screening would be a bigger help than gun control nowadays.

Leave the speculation and politics and anger for the guys not working out here in the streets and getting shot at.

And now that unarmed firefighters are apparently on the killing list for psychos, I could really care less what type rifle or capacity magazine a guy has who's shooting at me.

All I wanna know is who and where the jackass is shooting at me, and when is backup gonna get here.

Collector0311

December 27, 2012, 05:14 PM

Another thing. Even IF I didn't "need" 30rd mags (which I do) that doesn't matter. I've fought and bled and watched my friends die to protect the freedoms we enjoy. That's all the "need" I need.

JustinJ

December 27, 2012, 05:22 PM

I've seen many people run over, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned and yes shot.
So far, nobody has banned cars, knives, sticks or matches however.

The reason nobody is calling for the banning of those items is that they are recognized as necessary items for our modern lives and the positives of their availability drastically outweigh the negatives. If nobody saw value in such items there most certainly would be calls to ban them. Those who advocate banning magazines and specific guns fail to see value in them.

armoredman

December 27, 2012, 05:32 PM

Here is the response: "It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."

Emotional response? Yes. Completely true? No. Partially true? Yes.
Negative, it is wholly untrue, as you just accused me of a criminal act someone else committed. Bait and switch.
Did I cry for banning of Cadillac cars after a maniac drove one onto a school playground trying run over as many as he could, telling people he was "killing the onnocents"? True story. Did we cry to ban box cutters when they were used to commit the most horrific crime in US history on Spet 11th? Nope.
Don't ever tell me I have to give up my legal products because of some one else's criminal misuse, or we WILL open that Pandora's box...and nobody will like the end of that, comrade.

Trent

December 27, 2012, 05:43 PM

Another point.

I had the state police contact ME, as a private individual, after I closed up my gun shop in '09. "You still have any AR receivers or parts?"

They couldn't GET any.

I sold them a couple dozen. AT A LOSS.

When the local Marine reserve unit was shipping out for a tour of duty in Iraq, one of them called me up. The conversation led to me driving over to Bartonville, IL and giving a full day, hands-on seminar to their company on Klashnikov-type weapons (including live fire of 3,000 rounds of ammunition).

Arming the state police... training our Marines... self-defense, there's many roles for these weapons.

Boil it all down, we possess them for the greater good.

bikerdoc

December 27, 2012, 05:47 PM

Blaming the tool is easier than blaming a wack job that should have been dealt with already.
What we really need is a government that does not have its head up.........

JustinJ

December 27, 2012, 05:49 PM

Negative, it is wholly untrue, as you just accused me of a criminal act someone else committed. Bait and switch.

Cool your jets. Nobody has accused you of anything. Calling his comments such is preposterous.

Don't ever tell me I have to give up my legal products because of some one else's criminal misuse, or we WILL open that Pandora's box...and nobody will like the end of that, comrade.

Is that supposed to be some thinly veiled threat because there are quite a few laws already in place that prevent you from legally possessing once legal items such as select fire weapons? Or are you just waiting to open "Pandora's box" for the right time? Yeah, right.

FiremanJim

December 27, 2012, 05:52 PM

"I've seen many people run over, stabbed, bludgeoned, burned and yes shot.
So far, nobody has banned cars, knives, sticks or matches however."

That was to help make a point, but hopefully the original poster of this thread can show this to his brother, and help ease some of the tension.

FiremanJim

December 27, 2012, 05:55 PM

And on that note,......bye.

browningguy

December 27, 2012, 08:44 PM

Actually twice in the past few years the NYPD has needed 50 and 47 shots to put down a single unarmed individual.

Can you even imagine how many shots you might need for an actual armed bad guy.

W.E.G.

December 27, 2012, 08:55 PM

I respond by to that attack with a question.

I ask the inquisitor whether they have any firearms experience.

Their answer is usually one which opens the door wid to the complete de-construction of their attack.
Usually they just run away, like the debate-cowards that they usually are, before I'm anywhere close to done with them.

armoredman

December 27, 2012, 10:16 PM

"Negative, it is wholly untrue, as you just accused me of a criminal act someone else committed. Bait and switch."
Cool your jets. Nobody has accused you of anything. Calling his comments such is preposterous.
Hmm, you mean this,
"It becomes my business when something you purport to "need" is carried into a school and used to shoot my child in the back."
...doesn't mean what it says? Ah, of course it was a universal statement, a global "me" as opposed to specific "me"...as was my response to the mythical person making this accusation.

"
Don't ever tell me I have to give up my legal products because of some one else's criminal misuse, or we WILL open that Pandora's box...and nobody will like the end of that, comrade."
Is that supposed to be some thinly veiled threat because there are quite a few laws already in place that prevent you from legally possessing once legal items such as select fire weapons? Or are you just waiting to open "Pandora's box" for the right time? Yeah, right.
I can possess such firearms if I have the money, since I live in a Free State, no laws prevent my legal ownership thereof.
You misread again - this is what happens when free men are disbarred the right of arms. The Pandora's Box I refer to is confiscation, (such as the Governor of New York has bluntly stated he wishes to happen and will work for in his state), and what happens afterwards. Remember signs that read, "Armas, por que?" They went up all over Cuba after Castro won the revolution. Wonderful bastion of freedom, Cuba, people just dying to leave the place. By the way, accusing me of threatening anyone is completely out of line.

I say it again, don't blame me and mine for what some lunatic did elsewhere. Don't blame innocents for the work of madmen. Now if you're all done with insulting comments, pehaps can we get back to the discussion? :)

willroute

December 29, 2012, 12:39 AM

To shoot 30 rounds in one magazine.

76shuvlinoff

December 29, 2012, 01:57 AM

"For the children" doesn't cut it with me. I have a child too, now grown. I have never made the asinine connection between her safety and the mag capacity of any firearm.

As a matter of fact in a lifetime of owning firearms I have never felt the urge to turn them loose on the public. So why do I need a 30 rd mag? I haven't ... yet. I by gosh I have to ask who does it hurt that I have a few?

Zardaia

December 29, 2012, 02:37 AM

Because 40's are too long and quality drum mags are expensive.

Warp

December 29, 2012, 02:38 AM

Because 40's are too long and quality drum mags are expensive.
And even quality drum magazines are usually less reliable

rcmodel

December 29, 2012, 03:08 AM

Why do you need 30 round magazines?"... Why do I need a 30 gallon gas tank on my truck??

Because I don't want to run out before I get where I'm going!
Without carrying spare cans of gas rattling around in the back.
And because I can have a 30 gal gas tank if I want too.

Heck, I could burn down half the next city tonight with 25 gallons of gas, and still have 5 gallons to get back home on, to burn down some more places closer to home tomorrow.

But I am not even remotely nearly slightly crazy enough to even think about doing it.
Or draw up plans for an escape.
And there ain't no way I'm killing myself when the cops come!

So I won't use my 30 gallons of gas in my truck for nefarious or psychotic reasons tonight, or tomorrow, or any time ever.

And the numerous 15-20-30-round mags in the gun room and basement, some of which have been there for 40+ years?
Same thing.
I don't/won't ever use them for psychotic reasons either.
Just to go shooting or varmint hunting and have some fun.

Hows that!

rc

velobard

December 29, 2012, 03:39 AM

Are you aware of any instances where a high capacity magazine was used, and needed to repel attackers?
First one that came to mind was the Beckwith Incident written by Massad Ayoob.
http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Actually, it was 36 round mags in a full-auto S&W Model 76, used to defend against attackers at his gun shop in Florida. He had an AR too, but for whatever reason he had the mags downloaded to 15 rounds. I have to believe he came to regret that choice.

Not pointing to a specific incident, but on a practical basis I see a place for 30 round mags in a number of situations, like having acreage in an area known for rogue meth labs where you may be facing multiple undesirables in some remote woods (especially if they're doped up), or have land near the Mexican border where drug couriers or coyotes travel through. Absolutely no justification for legislating that law-abiding citizens should be outgunned. Also keep in mind that Columbine happened during the AWB and Harris had AWB-compliant 10 round mags....13 of 'em. If an attacker knows he's off to do some dirty business he can easily prepare himself with reloads, but the average citizen does well to carry a firearm at all, let alone spare mags. If you have any remaining doubts about the speed with which an attacker can swap mags, I suggest you re-watch Hupp's testimony about the Luby's Cafeteria shooting where she watched her parents die.

bikerdoc

December 29, 2012, 08:24 AM

It is not a question of need.
It is a question of liberty.
Focusing on 30 round mags distracts from the real question, "Why are these known mental defectives allowed to remain untreated after they have been identified."

Do I "need" 30 round mags? Nope. In fact, they are inconvenient to shoot sometimes as they hang too low on my AR. I usually shoot with 10 or 20 round mags. But I must admit my AR looks better with a 30round in it and once in a while it is fun to do a clay pigeon contest (one mag/ 20 sec/ 30 pigeons/ 100yds unsupported, or 200yds supported).

When you restrict one right others will follow. Soon people will realize that eating fast food kills more than guns and ban McD's. With that they can place a limit on the amount of calories you can eat in one sitting- even in your home. They can start eliminating what cars you drive as those also kill more people in a day than guns do in a month (where can I verify that?) and limit us to cars that are within their norm. Lets look at motorcycles (another of my favorite things to do), and ban sports bikes as we do not need those either. There are many things more dangerous than firearms with any magazine size.

We have become a society the wants our safety regulated to us. We want a guarantee on everything and not have to worry. We want to be fat, happy, and lazy. We want to blame everything else except us. We want instant results to long term problems without any effort on our part.

We do not want to accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions. We do not want to look at another human and say he was evil because that might mean looking at ourselves and finding the seed there too. We do not want to see that we as well are a problem that must be fixed.

That might take work, rude awakenings, and commitment. None of those things are common to us anymore. This is the new America. This is the "way things are." Why fight it when the work is so hard? Why bother?

This is what we are up against.

Sport45

December 29, 2012, 10:23 AM

Because a 30 round magazine costs less than three 10's?

crossrhodes

December 29, 2012, 10:52 AM

Why is it legal to buy a 450 HP corvette or camero? are you going to exceed the speed limit?. That would be my question to him. You could tag some EPA issues to that for debate too. My thirty round mag will never break a speed limit or cost a carbon point or get a DUI....LOL

Warp

December 29, 2012, 01:23 PM

Why is it legal to buy a 450 HP corvette or camero? are you going to exceed the speed limit?. That would be my question to him. You could tag some EPA issues to that for debate too. My thirty round mag will never break a speed limit or cost a carbon point or get a DUI....LOL

But it might be used to kill children.

That will be the response, without even having to think about it, and it won't move the conversation forward at all. I would just leave the part in bold out if/when you ever discuss or debate this issue with somebody.

clem

December 29, 2012, 01:31 PM

Zombies!

Slatronica

December 29, 2012, 01:45 PM

We should have the right to have 30 round mags to protect America against all enemy’s foreign and domestic.

ApacheCoTodd

December 29, 2012, 01:57 PM

I don't anymore - or to look at it another way - yet.

I also don't currently need many of the following which can be found about the homestead:

Snake-bite kits
Bottled water
Space blankets
Insurance; property, personal, professional and auto
Dogs with mouths full of teeth
Iodine pills
Snake shot
Buck shot
A motorcycle and a couple cars capable of over 150 MPH
A parachute

Hell the list goes on.

I find generally that one person's evaluation of a second person's need and subsequent desire (or perceived right) to act upon that evaluation has more to do with the first persons fixed personal points of view than any desire to understand or appreciate the second persons perspective.

I happen to think for the most part that people don't NEED many of the things they bought on credit which helped cause the current financial failings but I'll be damned if I feel qualified to limit their ability to make those bad choices even if I do currently feel the effects of their decisions.

A free society has consequences.

Trent

December 29, 2012, 02:15 PM

ApacheCoTodd, I couldn't agree more.

We live in a free country ... but my wife gets the cops called on her at the grocery store when my 5 children fall ill with the flu and she goes out to buy several packs of cold medicine.

Yup you've never seen hell until you get in the way of a 35 year old mother of 5 and her children's health, I thought I was going to have to bail her out of jail.

Free country... void where prohibited.

USgunguy

December 29, 2012, 11:47 PM

Police are to protect and serve. In assence they protect me and my family from the bad guys. To do this effectively in this day and age, most of them carry an AR15 with 30 rd mags.

In the event they do noy famid mt arrive in time I want to be equipped to effectively defend my family.

76shuvlinoff

December 29, 2012, 11:58 PM

Why 30 rd mags?

All the better to protect the 2nd amendment my dear.....

Queen_of_Thunder

December 30, 2012, 12:24 AM

You're right I don't need 30 rounders mags. I need 100 round drums or a mod that allows for an inexpensive belt fed lower receiver. Yeah that's what I need. Of course with a belt fed AR I'm going to need a quick change barrel.

Why can someone with zero experience riding a motorcycle able to buy one with a motor capable 200mph.

Why are you allowed to drive at 16 with no real driving experience.

Why, why, why?

FiremanJim

December 31, 2012, 12:30 PM

LOL,

Queen, you took the words right outta my mouth.

xfyrfiter

December 31, 2012, 02:28 PM

usgunguy ;the police are not here to protect and serve, they are here to write reports and mop up after the incident happens, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that the police were there before the crime.

Spats McGee

December 31, 2012, 02:45 PM

1) There are two separate questions at play on this issue. First, why does society need for individuals to have the right to have 30-round magazines? Second, why does one individual "need" 30-round magazines Answering the first question renders the second moot. I have many rights that I have never "needed" to exercise. Nonetheless, society needs for me (& every other individual) to have those rights. For example, I have never needed to exercise my Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure, my Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify against myself, or my Eighth Amendment right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments. Nonetheless, those three rights are the ones that prevent police from kicking in doors, and torturing confessions out of whomever they happen to find at home. We preserve those rights, and make them effective, by doctrines in our courts, such as the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of those rights. The Second Amendment is the last protector of all of the other rights, and we (as a society) need for individuals to be able to effectively exercise that right.

2) Ever hear of the Bill of Needs? Me, neither.

Friendly, Don't Fire!

December 31, 2012, 02:49 PM

If three thugs are abiding by some law that makes ten round guns the maximum, and they happen to kick down my door in the middle of the night, I will need AT LEAST thirty rounds to counter the three guys shooting at me with ten rounds each. :rolleyes:

stashu

December 31, 2012, 07:36 PM

Because it's called the "Bill of Rights"...

...not the "Bill of Needs".

col.lemat

December 31, 2012, 07:40 PM

Because the army gave me the ones I have and said take care of them. They the army still havent asked for them back.

Hardtarget

December 31, 2012, 08:06 PM

I was cornered with this question a few days ago. So I asked if they had a copy of the Constitution. I said go read all of the Bill of Rights. Those are YOUR rights...not the governments...YOURS.

Now, after you've read and considered them, make a priority list. If the second amendment goes...what will you be OK with when they want to take another one...and then third, fourth?

I just pointed out that if we allow the start of the gutting process it will never stop.

I'm not sure they liked the thought.

Mark

KMatch

December 31, 2012, 08:28 PM

But it might be used to kill children.

Followed by, "Not while it's in my possession".

76shuvlinoff

December 31, 2012, 08:38 PM

KMatch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp View Post
But it might be used to kill children.
Followed by, "Not while it's in my possession".

or

"In my possession it would defend children."

.

horsemen61

December 31, 2012, 08:43 PM

Last time I checked this was THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA It is not a question of need it is because I want it that is why I have it :D

the iron horse

December 31, 2012, 09:12 PM

Demolition Man is one of my favorite films.

The theme is very relevant to today. If you have never seen it or
saw it years ago, it's worth a tub of popcorn and a Coke.

From the film:

You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section.

David E

December 31, 2012, 09:19 PM

or

"In my possession it would defend children."
.

Much better, since their response to the first would be: The shooter STOLE that magazine, therefore no one should have them, lest theirs get stolen, too.

Dvorak

December 31, 2012, 11:11 PM

I've never been arrested or otherwise brought before a court, but I'm not going to give up my 4th-8th amendment rights just because I haven't needed them yet.

Capino

January 1, 2013, 08:23 AM

I love high capacity magazines and think everyone should be able to own them. I however just seem to not have them for my preferred weapons. Colt 1911, Colt AR and the Ka-bar if the shtf

The answer is dead simple: We need 30-round magazines because our oppressors have them.

The Founders lived in a country that was freed from British tyranny by citizens with guns who organized into militias to fight it, and they envisioned such militias would always exist to do exactly the same thing--fight back against tyranny. That is why they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.

When you break it down succinctly, these 18th century citizen militias were able to achieve victory because of four things:

1) They had a thirst for freedom. It would have been easier to simply let themselves be oppressed and fed by the Crown, and a lot of Colonists wanted to do just that. But rolling over and begging from government was not what America was about.

2) They had effective, layered leadership. George Washington was a savvy tactician and brilliant strategist, but his true greatness lay in his ability to motivate and energize his subordinate leaders and their forces.

3) They enjoyed much shorter lines of communication and supply than their oppressors. Ultimately, the British crown decided that given the economic hardships and logistical complexities of an overseas war and the tremendous expense of maintaining their vast empire, it was no longer feasible to fight the colonials. Had the king made continuing to hold the American colonies his highest priority, things would have turned out very differently.

4) They had the same weapons technology their oppressors had. The British army was oppressing colonial citizens with bladed weapons, muzzle-loading cannon, and single shot muzzle-loading muskets with bayonets. They Colonials fought back with the same.

The Second Amendment is not about personal or home defense, shooting sports, hunting, or collecting. It's about protecting freedom from those who would seek to diminish it. It's about fighting tyranny and oppression. That brings us back to where we started: We need 30-round magazines because our oppressors have them. We've already let our oppressors rob us of automatic weapons, supposedly for our own good, and now we would surrender still more to them?

This battle is not about guns per se. It's about the choice we face: allow government to control every aspect of our lives under the false promise of added security, or take charge of our own lives and of the government that seeks to rob us of liberty.

rodinal220

January 1, 2013, 01:12 PM

I was trained to fire three shots with my AR15 and quickly re-access and fire three more if the threat needed more.You are dealing with irrational and delusional people on this issue.

Also for training,new shooters can concentrate on shooting rather than on reloading.

Chris-bob

January 4, 2013, 03:53 AM

You don't buy because you need, you buy because you can. It's our right.

justice06rr

January 4, 2013, 05:47 AM

Why do we need 30-rd mags?

Because they're easier to use than belt-fed ammo :D

Why does someone need a 3000square-ft home, or a V12 vehicle? Well this is America, the land of the free!

It is NOT about need, its about having the freedom to do what you can and exercising that freedom. If you want to live in a mansion, or have a 60rd mag, or drive a 200mph car, you are free to do so. There is no justification needed.

Everything else is paranoia and prejudice...

Baba Louie

January 4, 2013, 07:11 AM

Might as well ask, "Why does one need Free Will, Freedom or Liberty?"

Security is a Utopian Dream. Liberty, worth fighting and possibly dying for. For some. Others will fall to their knees, licking the hands of those who chain them, thankful for sparing their lives another day. (obvious paraphrasing of Sammy Adams)

disclaimer, I too prefer the old 20 rd magazines, but that is beside the point.

I may not agree with your owning and loading up 30 rounders, but will defend to the death your right to do so. (again, obvious paraphrase of old Voltaire)

Sounds like a NEW America is here kids. Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good! Chicago Rules For All.

gym

January 4, 2013, 11:59 AM

I just got 2 more from a friend, a 20 and a 30 rounder, It's just a matter of logic with that gun. It was designed to hold 30, now you can get 60, and 100 if you choose, If you are shooting all day, who wants to spend half the time loading mags. You do that before you go, and shoot for an hour or two, instead of wasting the day reloading magazines.

razorbackaaron

January 4, 2013, 03:23 PM

I like to use the swimming pool reference when answering these types of questions.

Why does one need a swimming pool. There are more kids that drown in swimming pools in the US than are killed by guns. Should we ban swimming pools too?

Furthermore, EVERY swimming pool owned in the USA, public or private, has the POTENTIAL to drown a child. The AR15 and 30 round magazines locked in my safe have a nearly ZERO% chance of killing a child.

barnbwt

January 5, 2013, 12:14 AM

The answer is dead simple: We need 30-round magazines because our oppressors have them.

Aww, but that answer makes me feel sad inside :(. I want to trust my government; to feel pride in it as an extension of myself; to rely on the strength of numbers to reduce the need for my own exertion in life...

...

...too bad I actually paid attention in history class. The answers are always simple, if we really want them.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -Ayn Rand

nazshooter

January 6, 2013, 02:57 PM

Why do you need protection against searches without a warrant? Unless you are doing something illegal you should welcome the police in.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

boatmanschneider

January 6, 2013, 04:21 PM

I need a 30 round magazine because,

The bullets are so darn small.

If I had a .50 I could be content with a 10 round magazine,
or even less for a 20mm.

Captain33036

January 6, 2013, 04:49 PM

When your wife or daughter is facing two bad guys who broker into her home, how many rounds do you want her to have?

SharpsDressedMan

January 6, 2013, 07:04 PM

Because 40 rounders are illegal here in Ohio? :D 30 rounders are o.k., 31 and larger are not..........

jcwit

January 6, 2013, 07:09 PM

Why do you need protection against searches without a warrant? Unless you are doing something illegal you should welcome the police in.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Ya Sure!

This has always worked out well in the past, NO?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Why do you need 30 round magazines?"..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!